## Facts

- Dr. Emile Anthony Barrow, Jr. and Jennifer Martin Barrow married on November 14, 1987, and lived under Louisiana’s community-property regime.
- The couple enjoyed a very high standard of living during the marriage.
- In the fall of 1989, Jennifer began a master’s-degree program in nursing; she completed the program and received her degree in December 1992.
- Emile filed for divorce and partition of community property in January 1993; the divorce was finalized in August 1993.
- While Jennifer was in school, Emile’s medical practice generated substantial income; he earned nearly $2 million during that period.
- Emile testified that he neither needed nor wanted Jennifer to work during the marriage and did not expect any increase in the couple’s standard of living as a result of her degree.
- In the partition proceeding, the trial court set the net community value at approximately $680,867.29 and allocated one-half to each spouse.
- The trial court allocated most community assets and certain associated debts to Emile (including interests tied to his medical practice and related business entities) and ordered an equalizing payment to Jennifer.
- The trial court denied Emile’s claim for reimbursement for community contributions to Jennifer’s educational expenses under La. Civ. Code art. 121.
- Both parties appealed, disputing classification and valuation of certain assets and liabilities and the denial of Emile’s education-expense reimbursement claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Emile was entitled to reimbursement under La. Civ. Code art. 121 for community funds used toward Jennifer’s master’s-degree education in nursing.
2. Whether the trial court committed manifest error in classifying and valuing Emile’s medical-practice-related interests and associated items (including receivables and certain liabilities) in the community partition.
3. Whether the trial court erred in resolving the parties’ other allocation, credit, and reimbursement disputes in the community balance sheet.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the partition judgment as amended.
- The court upheld the trial court’s denial of Emile’s La. Civ. Code art. 121 reimbursement claim for Jennifer’s educational expenses.
- The court generally upheld the trial court’s community-property classifications for the medical-practice-related interests and deferred to the trial court’s fact findings on disputed valuations, subject to limited amendments where the record required correction.
- The court maintained the overall allocation and equalization approach, modifying only specific valuation or accounting items identified on appellate review.

## Legal Principles

- Property acquired during the community regime is presumed community; a spouse claiming separate ownership must prove separateness by clear and convincing evidence.
- In a community partition, classification and valuation findings are reviewed under the manifest error/abuse of discretion standards; trial courts have broad discretion when evidence conflicts, especially for closely held business and professional-practice valuations.
- Accounts receivable and similar items may require discounting when the evidence shows that face value does not reflect realistic collectability.
- La. Civ. Code art. 121 allows reimbursement for community contributions to a spouse’s education or training only when the statutory conditions are met; the claim is fact-intensive and depends on whether the supporting spouse (or the community) made a substantial financial sacrifice and whether the community substantially benefitted from the increased earning capacity before termination of the community.
- Where the marriage maintained a very high standard of living, the wage-earning spouse did not need the student-spouse to work, and the record does not show meaningful sacrifice or expected economic gain to the community from the degree, denial of art. 121 reimbursement is not error.

## Conclusion

Barrow v. Barrow holds that, on this record, a physician-spouse was not entitled to reimbursement under La. Civ. Code art. 121 for community-funded expenses of the other spouse’s master’s degree in nursing, because the marriage’s finances showed no substantial sacrifice tied to that education and no anticipated improvement to the couple’s standard of living from the degree. In the same community-property partition appeal, the court largely deferred to the trial court’s classifications and valuations of medical-practice-related interests and related accounting items, making only limited amendments while affirming the overall partition and equalization framework.


Barrow v. Barrow, 669 So. 2d 622 (1996)